The Third Year of the Obama Administration: Facts, Opinions and Discussions

I'm kind of unnerved by Obama's almost unqualified endorsement of all of the Bush Administration's civil rights abuses via-a-vis terrorist suspects. I've never had, and still don't have, any objection (in principle, anyway) to the illegal surveillance measures utilized by the Bush and Obama administrations. It was always the systematic torture and indefinite detention without trial of detainees that revolted me. (The distinction in my mind being that "illegal surveillance" is a victimless act. I know there are concerns about what utility it actually has in practice, but in principle I really don't care). I am grateful that torture has been ended, but with regards to trials for suspects, if even Obama has completely sold out on this issue, who's going to come along and stand up for these people's rights? It certainly isn't going to be the Republican challenger in 2012.

 

We oughta ask Natalie what she thinks.

I'd be far more interested in her comments than all the talking heads on CNN and Fox News.

Peace,

V-03

 

Rumors going around that Leon Panetta, the CIA Director, is going to become Secretary of Defense; while Petraeus is going to become new CIA Director.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100082456/general-david-petraeus-tipped-to-take-over-cia/

If Petraeus ever decides to run for President, very unlikely in 2012 but who knows about 2016, I think he could easily win and become a new Washington/Eisenhower figure. Becoming CIA Director will just broaden and deepen his experience, like George H.W. Bush.

 

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo is positioning himself to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. I think I mentioned him in the previous version of this thread, or the Future of the GOP thread, as being one of my picks for possible future Democratic candidates (along with NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, and a few others).

Cuomo seems the strongest bet right now, (though I think he's going too far in his budget cuts). There's a chance of someone new and amazing coming in next year as a new Democratic Governor, but any election after 2012 will be too late for 2016. The Republicans are likely to lose in 2012, but much more likely to win in 2016, where they'll have a large, diverse, and by-then experienced pool of candidates (Marco Rubio, Jon Huntsman, Nikki Haley, etc.)

I know people are too focused on 2012, but President Obama really needs to start thinking of grooming a successor. That used to be what the Vice President position was for, but now that job seems to go to the older and politically unthreatening (to the President) politicians, like Cheney and Biden.

Which Democrats do you think have a chance at becoming President in 2016?

 

Obama should rightly remained focused on 2012. Way too early to be choosing a successor.

In other news, the Democrats appear to have won the Wisconsin special election. The GOP will of course challenge the results with a recount, but they can't challenge the fact that Democratic turnout has been impressive. Given that Prosser was originally expected to win an easy victory, this represents a huge resurgence for the Democratic party. I called it a month ago, but now its true: Scott Walker and the Republicans have overreached. I expect a national backlash to be on its way, especially if the government shuts down.

On a semi-related note, I sat in on a session of the Senate today. I saw Brown, Sanders, Lieberman, Gillibrand, Baucus and Rubio. It was quite exciting and interesting.

 

I shouldn't have said "too focused" on 2012, but they need to have it in the back of their heads. The Democratic pool is so weak right now, I think the Democratic Party could face a serious crisis in 2016 and later years. I have problems with Obama, as do you, as do moderate Democrats and liberal Democrats, but he really is one of the best and I'm afraid the Democratic Party won't know what to do after he leaves.

I don't think the Wisconsin election really helps the Democrats. If they won in a landslide, yeah, but being so split actually shows how strong Walker's supporters are. Much stronger than I expected.

That must have been really cool! What were you there for? Get to talk to anyone?

 

Nevermind, the Democrats lost the special election because some idiot in Wisconsin doesn't know how to count. Nothing to see here..

 

I don't think that's supposed to be a "because" there.

So, if the Democrats winning in Wisconsin would represent that the Republicans had overreached, does the Republicans winning this mean that they have not yet overreached? If it's a referendum on Walker, that seems to imply that while controversial, Walker has passed.

 

Yeah. With all the noise they were making about this special election on MSNBC, anything less than a landslide for the Democrat would be a loss for the Democrats. And the Democrat actually lost.

The Democrats are beginning to resurge, I think, but the key word is beginning.

 

So, if the Democrats winning in Wisconsin would represent that the Republicans had overreached, does the Republicans winning this mean that they have not yet overreached? If it's a referendum on Walker, that seems to imply that while controversial, Walker has passed.

It does serve to highlight how much perception can or does fail to match up with what is actually happening. It was an honest mistake, more so due to how this race was being reported, but before the results where even finalized someone posted in here how it was a referendum on over-reach and such... Well, the the "miscount" happened to involve some 7,000 or more votes, which is puzzling, but why jump on the bandwagon so quickly? Why not just wait until the election is actually over?

But yeah, if MSNBC was making such a big deal about this election, probably unfairly because it was still unfolding, does the new result actually signal that the union issue is dead in Wisconsin, as the public has spoken? Or is something else going on?

On a different note, more tallies are being released. The "NATO campaign" has so far cost the US about 650 million dollars, more than any other nation, so it's not exactly NATO-focused. The US Air Force alone is spending 4 million dollars every working day. That total should come down as the US engages in less combat patrols. Now, there are reports being released, which aren't all that unsurprising, which detail that the US might actually send in ground troops:

MSNBC HERE

Ham's comments are perhaps the first real assessment that the situation has stalemated, although it's been that way for a while now. Now, Obama has repeatedly said that he with not send ground troops as CIC, but if he does authorize the deployment, how much would opinion change if those troops actually end up fighting on the ground in Libya, especially if it's another mission that would serve to oust a leader and rebuild a country? It's an important consideration, especially since there's been no authorization that's been passed by Congress as of yet.

 

Mr44, to be fair, Ham said "I suspect there might be some consideration of that." which means he thinks it would be getting discussed but doesn't, himself, know of it. Or at least, isn't disclosing that. That's different from sources saying that the administration actually is discussing that.

 

I think overreach is too broad a term to use here; it's simply a question of where the energy is.

The bigger message here is that democratic voters are unlikely to sit out 2012, which means the fight returns to the middle. This bodes poorly for the GOP given that in the budget talks, the hangups are over social policy riders; democrats have already gone more than halfway in agreeing to cuts for FY2011.

The media is playing the lack of agreement over social issues, as well, and it's sticking. If the government shuts down, I think Obama will initially take criticism for coming to the game too late, and then eventually "win" the PR battle simply by looking more sane than the Tea Party.

These type of tactics play very well with the GOP base, who must be delighted over the refusal to compromise, but they don't constitute enough of a voting block to win a general election. By tacking to the right, John Boehner is giving Obama and the democrats an arsenal with which to sway independent voters in 2012. It all comes down to the economy, of course, but the further right they tack, the worst the economy will have to be for swing voters to choose the GOP next year. They have taken their House victory and once again acted as if this has been a wholesale endorsement of hard-right conservative policies across the board.

Interestingly enough, Boehner and company spoke ad nauseum after the midterms about being sent to DC for "the economy, not anything else", yet they have allowed social issues to dominate.

The GOP seems to continually have trouble with the lesson that governing to the base loses everyone else. IMHO, stupid, stupid, stupid.

Peace,

V-03

 

Except that you are forgetting that the Democrats directly caused this entire fight by refusing to pass a budget last year when they were supposed to do so. They specifically avoided it because they didn't want it used against them in the elections, and now they are trying to make it look like it's the Republicans' fault that there isn't a budget passed. If the Democrats try to use a shut down against the Republicans, it could quite easily backfire as a blatantly political maneuver.

The exit polls in November strongly supported the idea that fiscal responsibility was one of the top issues, and the high level of deficit spending was a big part of that. The Democrats are going to be extremely limited in how much they can push the Republicans on a shut down without losing the issue of fiscal responsibility completely.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Kimball's right, the failure to pass a budget last year was a terrible miscalculation. Obama and the Congressional dems handed the Tea Party freshmen a lavish gift of crafting their signature issue of 2011 for them. There's plenty of schadenfreude to go round though, since Boehner comes out of this looking weak and ineffectual, the victim of a palace putsch.

 

Mr44, to be fair, Ham said "I suspect there might be some consideration of that." which means he thinks it would be getting discussed but doesn't, himself, know of it. Or at least, isn't disclosing that. That's different from sources saying that the administration actually is discussing that.

Well, to be fair to be fair, I didn't indicate that any official was discussing a specific plan, so I guess I'd reply that I agree with you? My question was if troops are sent, how much change of perception would this operation undergo? I suppose you could read more into my first sentence when I said "The US might send ground troops," but in my mind, that was just a acknowledgment of the possibility, not a specific plan.

The real impact of Ham's words is the realization of the stalemate. In fact, twice over the past couple of weeks, NATO planes have bombed and killed rebel fighters instead of their intended targets. The first strike seemed to have been taken in stride by the fighters. The second strike seems to have shaken the rebels, who are becoming critical of NATO.

The main problem in this regard is due to the fact the fact that there was no coordination before NATO started the strikes, and now, the focus is on "catch-up." This falls directly at the feet of the planners. When you use air power, you need a ground controller. This is 1000x more crucial when air power is exclusively relied on and/or its operating over dissimilar forces. I'd say that this is why the US started pulling its combat patrols.

The second issue is that combat is by nature, full of uncertainty. The best plans can be unraveled with a change in situation, so you have to stay focused on the goal. I think the overall planners legitimately thought that Gaddafi would simply give up at the sight of NATO planes. Besides his initial "ata boy" speech, I have not heard a peep out of Sarkozy, and it's worse than pulling teeth to get any comments from the US President. Because airpower is not a means to itself. You either need to commit, or realize the limitations of trying to direct policy from the air. So what's the next step? Absent of a partition plan, I think that Quaddafi is going to go, but yet again, the long haul means that NATO inherented Libya.

 

Except that you are forgetting that the Democrats directly caused this entire fight by refusing to pass a budget last year when they were supposed to do so. They specifically avoided it because they didn't want it used against them in the elections, and now they are trying to make it look like it's the Republicans' fault that there isn't a budget passed. If the Democrats try to use a shut down against the Republicans, it could quite easily backfire as a blatantly political maneuver.

It could, but I don't think it will. Here's why:

1) Attention span-nobody is talking about the failure to pass a budget last year. While the democrats dropped the ball back then, it doesn't really matter now. It will matter even less next year, when the argument will be not about who is to be blamed for the shutdown, but how to fix the long-term debt.

It's simply too far out to predict who will or will not benefit from a shutdown. I stand by my comments though, that the Tea Party will become more unpopular with the middle as time goes on, and this only helps Obama. The more extreme they look, the better off he is, and the worst the economy has to be for non-base voters to give them "a chance".

The exit polls in November strongly supported the idea that fiscal responsibility was one of the top issues, and the high level of deficit spending was a big part of that.

Very true. Polls also showed that "values issues" were pretty much at the bottom of the list, except for those who generally only vote based on an anti-choice stance. The position of the GOP has been an attempt at social re-engineering using the budget as a cover. Ignorance of that fact, here or in the media as a whole (and it isn't being ignored in the media), doesn't change it.

The simple truth is that no-one is going to be happy with the cuts that need to come, but I find it very suspect that the first thing the GOP did with their House majority was start looking for ways to tighten abortion laws. I have spoken on this subject time and again, and I will reiterate what I have been saying for months now:

The Republican Party is dominated by religious extremists. That statement is broad, but it is also true. They have as much of a stranglehold on the GOP as unions do on the Democrats. The percentage of rabidly anti-abortion voters is small compared to the general voting public as a whole, but they are very, very vocal, and the Republican leadership lives in mortal terror of them. While most Americans are uncomfortable with abortion and do not have a problem with a baseline level of restrictions, it is the most extreme elements who are driving the debate.

This has harmed the Republican Party in ways that are oftentimes not really discussed anymore. During the Reagan years, the democrats responded by running to the left. This made everyone feel warm and fuzzy about "idealogical purity", but it lost elections year after year. Democratic gains during the '80s in Congress were protest votes against Reagan, not endorsement of liberal policies. It wasn't until Clinton and the DLC put forth a centrist platform that the White House was won again for the democratic party.
Democrats get this message, and Republicans continue to ignore it. Yes, there is a far left, but it holds almost no power in the mainstream apparatus compared to the far right and the GOP. The difference is, Republicans have managed to own the message, and cast the center as much further right than it actually is. This has the dual effect of making the opposition look more extreme (even when they have less power) and themselves less so.

Despite what you may all think, I am a centrist voter. I am also a registered Democrat who voted for all but one Republican in the 2010 midterms. My votes were for local and state politicians whom I thought would be most friendly to physicians and work to change the dire malpractice environment in southeastern Pennsylvania. I am well aware that Tom Corbett is anti-choice, but I wasn't much bothered by it, as it wasn't at the to

 

Yes, let's discuss how the Democratic party started this whole mess.

Sen. GOP Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has long been known as an effective whip, and Thursday night he showed his prowess as he effectively stripped Democrats of the GOP votes needed to pass the $1.2 trillion omnibus spending bill, killing the measure for good.

Starting there. And also let's discuss this list of the Gee Opie's riders.

No funding for Biomass Crop Assistance Program - (benefit to energy companies, Koch brothers types)

Restrict ability of the FDA to transfer funds- (have to wonder why the FDa can't transfer funds)

Fed Reserve cannot give money to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - (benefit to banks, credit card companies etc.)

No funds for a consumer products complaints database -(benefits to businesses, power taken from consumers)

No funding for Wetlands Reserve Program
No funding for Conservation Stewardship Program
No funding for Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
No Funding for Weatherization Assistance (again, energy companies love this)
No funding for environmental projects in California
No funding for a climate change czar in the White House
No funding for the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses
No funding for the EPA to change a rule regulating water
No funding to enforce and order for protecting public natural spaces
A moratorium on paying people who sue the government

linky (pdf)

I think this budget discussion would be great. Anyone wish to discuss why any of this stuff is included or necessary? Or do you wanna continue drinking GOP swill?

 

 

But FID, digging around that site, it blames the demmies just as much as the GOP. Although, for your link, I got a "page can't be found" notice, but I think I found what you wanted to point out. In fact, it's another site which seems to give more kudos to Paul Ryan's budget suggestion, so I'm not sure how that squares with what you just posted. It also points out what KK and Jabba just mentioned, in that the budget was supposed to be passed 6 months ago, and that can be blamed on the political brinksmanship back then. I mean, I guess I see how you just picked out a list of items that you might personally disagree with, but there's more to it than just that.

 

FYI from The Washington Post, of all places:

[image=http://i.imgur.com/2n8YT.jpg]

More info.

tl;dr: Republicans hate women, poors.

 

B-But Senator Kyl (R-AZ) just said abortion was "over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does!"

Oh, wait. Now he's saying that "wasn't intended to be a factual statement." Wow, you can go on the congressional record and blatantly lie to the entire country, and as long as you're lying on purpose, that makes it okay!

Explain to me again what "values" these people represent?

 

I blame them both as well. I just don't shill for any party. Though I will admit that I hate the Gee Opie and anyone who wishes tk associate with them and their regressive agenda.

 

I'm here to tell you that John Boehner is a sharp guy, and one wonders how 1996 would have gone if he or someone like him had been in charge. He threaded a virtually non-existent needle, and did a terrific job of doing it. He'll get some fallout, but he got things to almost $40 billion. He took the Gingrich playbook and just did the opposite of what it said to do.

Boehner was well aware that a shutdown would have been catastrophic for the GOP. I'm sure Democrats would have gotten dinged as well, but it wouldn't have been close to the enmity directed at Republicans. Boehner is an establishment Republican, and there aren't many of those left. Just like with the crash in 2008, crises tend to bring out the pragmatists and realists. You can ramble on endlessly about ideology and how things should be, but when the sky is either falling or coming off its hinges, you do what's necessary to survive.

 

At the end of the day the Republicans could not let themselves get nailed for making the budget fight a pretext for pushing social ideology. If it was about spending, then they had to compromise once the Democrats agreed to their number. The American people were getting fed up hearing about NPR and Planned Parenthood as opposed to meaningful budget issues.

 

Agree w/both of those.

Not surprisingly, I am going to give Obama some props. He may have waited far too long to step in, but it now looks as if by doing so, he accomplished some heavy lifting.

It's not the case, but the appearance of it may boost his standing w/independents. The psychology of how this was played was brilliant.

Now, we have to see if the House will indeed pass the compromise, or if some of these riders try and sneak themselves back in. Since the facts regarding Planned Parenthood's role can be changed based on which party is talking about them, I won't believe a deal has actually occured until it is inked by the President.

What passed last night/early this morning was simply another continuing resolution, with a FY2011 framework agreement hammered out. It still faces votes in both houses of Congress.

Peace,

V-03